A History of Ethiopian Legal and Justice Systems: From Antiquity to Post-1991 Reforms

Abstract

This paper systematically traces the evolution of Ethiopia’s legal and judicial systems from antiquity to post-1991 reforms, revealing core tensions in its legal history: the conflict between “unification and pluralism,” “modern form and autocratic substance,” and “law as a tool of political control.” In the pre-modern period (before 1907), Ethiopia was characterized by coexisting plural legal traditions: the feudal-monarchical law of the northern Christian Solomonic monarchy (symbolized by the Fetha Negast), the deliberative customary law of southern societies (e.g., the Ya Joka of the Gurage and the Gadaa system of the Oromo), and Islamic Sharia law for Muslim communities. This created a vertical “top-down law” (from the throne) and horizontal “bottom-up law” (from the people) dichotomy.
During the Imperial period (1907–1974), the state launched a codification and modernization project, transplanting European models (e.g., the 1931/1955 Constitutions, 1930/1957 Penal Codes, 1960 Civil Code) to unify plural laws. However, in practice, the imperial prerogative (the Zufan Chilot) coexisted with codified laws, creating a split between “law in books” and “law in action.”
The Derg era (1974–1991, socialist regime) redefined law as a tool of class struggle: it dismantled the imperial legal order, established “people’s justice” (community courts), and enforced state terror (special military tribunals), but ultimately failed due to economic collapse and ethnic conflicts.
In the Federal Democratic Republic era (1991–present), the 1995 Constitution introduced “ethnic federalism” and “constitutional pluralism,” recognizing ethnic self-determination and customary law. Yet, de facto one-party dominance (EPRDF/Prosperity Party) created tension between constitutional text and political practice, with limited judicial independence and frequent ethnic violence.
The conclusion highlights that Ethiopia’s legal history centers on the challenge of institutionalizing the “rule of law” to bind sovereign power, balancing ethnic autonomy and national unity. Its experience reveals the complexity of law as a tool of political legitimacy, and the future requires a sustainable equilibrium between plural recognition and a shared political community.